Violence highlights the campaign

By Arief Budiman

SALATIGA (JP): The election campaign has been going on for more than two weeks now. What we see in this campaign is very interesting. Both government (Golkar) and nongovernment parties (especially PPP) have been hostile toward each other. They destroy each other's banners. They also show very little respect for people in the streets. They stop cars and force people to give the respective party's salute or else they will smash the car's window and sometimes hurt the people inside. For party campaigners, everybody has to join them. If you refuse, they will consider you dissimilar and indifferent, and therefore you are enemies.

We can identify two characteristics of the present election campaign: (1) no tolerance for "the other" and (2) violence has become the language of present politics. Very little attention is paid to a party's program, namely what the party will do if they win the election. When leaders of a party talk about this, people easily get bored and leave the rally area. They would prefer some of dangdut's sensual singers or some comedians to entertain them.

Why is this so?

First, I think, people do not have any expectations that this election will change their lives. Everything has been setup neatly by the government: Golkar will win around 70 percent of the votes and the other two parties will have to divide the rest. Also the government has made sure that nongovernment parties are not led by critical leaders, such as Megawati. The present general election is called the "festival of democracy". It is quite clear that the government wants more festival than democracy. If there is too much democracy, the government will intervene.

Secondly, we don't have a strong culture of tolerance. We can't tolerate differences, especially in political ideas, despite our national slogan of "unity in diversity". Leaders of the unrecognized People's Democratic Party (PRD) and the Indonesian Union Democratic Party (PUDI), led by Sri Bintang Pamungkas, who tried to introduce different political ideas are all in jail now, accused of contesting the state and committing subversive activities.

Let me contrast this situation with one that exists in the West. A friend of mine who had visited the United States told me that the most impressive thing he saw there was the tolerance of the people with different ideas.

"I was watching TV, and there the president of the United States announced a political decision on some very important issues. Right after this, a commentator started to criticize his decision, giving a different perspective. Another hour later, a comedian started to make fun of the president's decision," he said.

He added that he felt enriched by all these different opinions. Having these different perspectives of the issue, he then felt compelled to participate in the debate and developed his own critical opinion.

People in the U.S., he said, were used to having different opinions on any issue. As a matter of fact, when an issue came up, people automatically sought different opinions. They did not want to say anything about the issue until he or she had already heard a few other opinions. Different opinions are not only tolerated, but are always sought after. It has become a basic need of people, just like food.

Unfortunately, we don't have this kind of culture in Indonesia. As a matter of fact, a culture of tolerating differences has been discouraged by the government. What is needed in Indonesia now, according to the government, is strong unity. Indonesia is a pluralistic society in terms of culture, ethnicity, race, religion and economic class.

These different social groups have to be strongly bound by a common ideology and perception of how we are going develop this nation. Usually it is the government, through the People's Consultative Assembly (whose members are mostly appointed by the President), that defines this common ideology and perception.

Interpretations outside this are not only discouraged, but are considered as contesting state power, and therefore subversive, as in the case of PRD and PUDI. Thus, Indonesia's political system has become monolithic, with very little tolerance to differences, especially in political ideas.

Why is this so? It seems that the military's dominance in the political system is an important factor. We all know that the organizational structure of the military is monolithic in nature. This has something to do with the function of the military, namely with an emergency situation such as war, in which the uniformity of command is a must so that quick decisions can be made and obeyed. Being monolithic is the nature of all military organizations in the world.

Under the concept of "dual function", the military in Indonesia is also involved in nonmilitary affairs, including politics. In carrying out this function, the military cannot avoid using the organizational structure they rely on most, by running state affairs through command and obedience, with strong discipline in hierarchy and uniformity.

Not only do they use this monolithic approach, but they also think that this method is superior to methods used by civilians: problem-solving through negotiation, treating others as equal and inviting diverse opinions before arriving at a decision. Civilian methods are considered too slow, in that they create unnecessary complexity.

Unfortunately, this military culture of intolerance has influenced civilians. Some civilian leaders are even more rigid in implementing this monolithic culture. The considerations made by the civilian judges in sentencing PRD leaders were strongly based on these uniform and monolithic ideologies.

When we talk about militarism dominating Indonesia's political system, it is this military culture that has dominated the military and civilians alike. It is this same military culture that dominates present election campaigners, both government and the nongovernment parties.

The culture of tolerance is not only absent in Indonesia today, but it is also discouraged by the government. What prevails is the pressure of uniformity, in order to cement the unity of this country.

Thirdly, the use of violence is the language of politics. Again, one has to look at the government that cultivates our culture. In the case of Megawati and her PDI, for instance, she has tried very hard to appeal to the government using principles of ethics and morality, but to no avail.

She also tried to go through the existing legal system to seek justice, but this has also been limited by the government. The government keeps using its power to deal with problems, and sometimes in a violent way, as was the case on July 27 last year.

So what is happening now in the election campaign? Violent riots in cities in Java and Kalimantan before the campaign were only the offspring of the July 27 drama. People have learned that if you want to play politics, you have to use power and violence, not intellectual arguments.

This is surely not good news for the future of Indonesia's democracy. The basic foundation of democracy, namely the culture of tolerance, is not only absent, but is being hindered by the government itself. The July 27 drama, the sentencing of Mochtar Pakpahan, Sri Bintang Pamungkas and PRD leaders, the treatment to Megawati and her PDI, are all good examples for people that, if you have power and can use violence, you can do anything. Thus, the election campaign has become a competition of showing one's muscle, not brain.

If this culture of intolerance and use of brute power and violence for political means are sustained, we can easily predict which political group will control Indonesia. It is not very difficult to see that the military has the biggest muscle of all.

The writer is a sociologist and researcher based in Salatiga.

Window: The culture of tolerance is not only absent in Indonesia today, but it is also discouraged by the government. What prevails is the pressure of uniformity, in order to cement the unity of this country.